Slashdot Mirror

I guess now we'll find out if Mac users really are smarter.

But the truly pathetic problem with this is that, while it might offer a significant deterrent against DoS and other malicious attacks, the fact that Congress is even considering a bill like this, and still haven't introduced something along the same lines for huge Corporate thieving and shananagans, is utterly asenine.

Look at it this way, hacking usually is malicious toward large corporate entities, unless it has to do with stealing personal info such as credit cards, S/N's and the like (which falls under identity theft, and should be getting its own life sentence IMHO soon). These big corporations can easily absorb most attacks (i.e. write off fictitious losses to capital losses, and have the hit go to the stock holders).

But on the other hand, the recent rash (or at least the sudden disclosure) of many corporate scandals basically leaves the stock holders and employees feeling the loss. The actual perpetrators never feel the same loss as someone who no longer has a retirement fund to speak of. So the worst punishment these thieves can receive is some vacation at a minimum security country club. But they have ruined MANY peoples whole lives, yet they have never faced the threat of true consequences.

Now to keep from being completely off topic: So congress has a bill pushed through that will enable hackers to receive a life sentence for their malicious acts. But all that we've heard about cracking down on corporate crime is some fluff regarding the SEC and accounting procedures, and much of the same from George W's podium. (But wait, what was that Harken Energy thingy?)

Seems quite ironic to me considering that the "great economic expansion" of the 90's was just a load of crap ontop of inflated profits. So let's go after those real criminals, Mr. Ashcroft! You just point your finger and we'll tap their phones and ISP to see what kind of mischief they're really getting into.

After all, they never do anything good, do they Yahoo?

But the truly pathetic problem with this is that, while it might offer a significant deterrent against DoS and other malicious attacks, the fact that Congress is even considering a bill like this, and still haven't introduced something along the same lines for huge Corporate thieving and shananagans, is utterly asenine.

Look at it this way, hacking usually is malicious toward large corporate entities, unless it has to do with stealing personal info such as credit cards, S/N's and the like (which falls under identity theft, and should be getting its own life sentence IMHO soon). These big corporations can easily absorb most attacks (i.e. write off fictitious losses to capital losses, and have the hit go to the stock holders).

But on the other hand, the recent rash (or at least the sudden disclosure) of many corporate scandals basically leaves the stock holders and employees feeling the loss. The actual perpetrators never feel the same loss as someone who no longer has a retirement fund to speak of. So the worst punishment these thieves can receive is some vacation at a minimum security country club. But they have ruined MANY peoples whole lives, yet they have never faced the threat of true consequences.

Now to keep from being completely off topic: So congress has a bill pushed through that will enable hackers to receive a life sentence for their malicious acts. But all that we've heard about cracking down on corporate crime is some fluff regarding the SEC and accounting procedures, and much of the same from George W's podium. (But wait, what was that Harken Energy thingy?)

Seems quite ironic to me considering that the "great economic expansion" of the 90's was just a load of crap ontop of inflated profits. So let's go after those real criminals, Mr. Ashcroft! You just point your finger and we'll tap their phones and ISP to see what kind of mischief they're really getting into.

After all, they never do anything good, do they Yahoo?

nicotine reduces chance of Alzheimer's

caffeine reduces chance of Alzheimer's

alcohol reduces chance of Alzheimer's ....

Death reduces chance of Alzheimer's.

This article says that caffeine may reduce Alzheimers.

However, this article says that alcohol may reduce Alzheimers.

So in other words...the best thing I can do is drink Irish coffee?

- JoeShmoe

.

Police said they used the same computer from which the Web sites were uploaded to remove the offensive material and replace it with the crest of the special police unit involved.

They did not say whether they informed the Internet providers that hosted the sites. Nor did they name the providers.

Investigators first learned about the sites, with names that translate into phrases including "Pig Madonna" and "Blasphemy," in 2000.

100% accurate or not, reports like this aren't going to change the way the U.S. lives -- we're too comfortable in our lifestyles to make big changes.

Of course not, because America still feels as if she is the only thing that matters. But we've started to slip, years ago; and there isn't anyone to blame. But we are the ones who open and connect the world, we don't control it but we play host a lot. But we aren't doing what we should.

One example is that Germany is the leader in "recyclable" cars. If this is a global problem, and the chance is, we need to be working on the same new technologies. If not we will lose our grip. We are living a life on high compared to others...

It's going to take some catastrophic change that impacts the U.S. directly to get us to wake up. Unfortunately it's developing countries which are going to feel those changes first.

I disagree. The motion of civilization will likely push developing nations to alternatives. We will be the ones in the rut.

The event that changes us is our resistance to move forward. It will be a developing nation that knocks us off. Staying ahead is the only solution.

DRM will not make it on to desktop PC's. Try telling a user that the new computer they are thinking of purchasing has less features than their current one.

Why tell them that, when you can tell them this instead:

"Palladium promises to dramatically improve our ability to control and protect personal and corporate information. Even more important, it is also intended to become a new platform for a host of yet-unimagined services to enable privacy, commerce and entertainment in the coming decades."

- Live Talk

What a waste of taxpayer money

Here's where the story was first reported in the mainstream press, with far more information, analysis, and interviews: Newsweek article by Stephen Levy. You might also want to read Microsoft's own take on this initiative.

Considering Microsoft has called the GPL a "Cancer" and attacks linux publicly whenever possible by telling outright lies, how can we ever look bad?

Because Microsoft can afford advertising, publicity campaigns, lobbyists, and media access (I mean, they do partially own their own media network... Those who have been chosen and/or brought to the forefront as Linux Spokespersons, as a rule, do not. Though some of them have weblogs.

Umm, who's this "you all" that you're talking to? Do you imagine that all of nanae is part of an organized conspiracy or something? (On Usenet?!) Three words: shiny side out. (Mumble, abuse desk Kooks, mumble... :^) (Yes, you did use tinya, points.) I'm a member of the ARSCC [wdne] too.

Completely blocking a tier 1 all at once would be irresponsible, and would cause people who trust the block-lists they use, not to trust them. You should instead expect [ians] to be nibbled to death by ducks. A /24 here, a /16 there, soon or later it adds up to spare change.

Personally, do you like having spammers as long-term clients? Do you see spam as a problem to be blown off as the province of kooks or a long term threat that, alas, is low on the priority ladder?

Source for quote "The stakes are high for aggressive marketers eager to break through the clutter. Companies will blitz consumers with more than 430 billion e-mail advertisements this year. By 2006, that figure is expected to reach more than 960 billion. It is, by any standard, a lot of spam." All that and a bag of chips!

Eh, this has probably gone far enough in Slashdot. If you want to take it further, have your spamtrap email my spamtrap.

Those dreamy eyes.
Those wisps of hair.

Who's he trying to fool?

I would post examples from The NYTimes, but they don't let you see previous issues of the paper online for free. However, as I recall their picks closely mirrored The Washington Post's:

The Washington Post
Top Story: Cyber-Attacks by Al Qaeda Feared
No. 2 Story: SEC Charges WorldCom With Fraud
No. 3 Story: U.S. Court Votes to Bar Pledge of Allegiance

The Los angeles Times
Top Story: 'Tweens: From Dolls to Thongs
One of the store mannequins wears a fringed denim skirt riding low on the hips and a top pushed high on the midriff. Another has shorts that roll down on the tummy and a one-shoulder top.
No. 2 Story: Pledge of Allegiance Violates Constitution, Court Declares
No. 3 Story: WorldCom Hit With Federal Fraud Lawsuit

The Los Angeles Times shows a consistent bias toward "Reader's Digest" type stories that are entertaining and give you something to gossip about but don't really tell you anything of value. I also get the sense that many LA Times reporters are really failed screenplay writers who can't let go of the need to create drama. However, they do occasionally print something worth reading.

The LA Times is owned by The Chicago Tribune , which puts even less original content on its Web site and is more "in-your-face" about pressuring you to subscribe.

I suspect Slashdot would link to The Wall Street Journal more often if the paper made more than 1% of its content available to non-paying subscribers. (I had a paid subscription to wsj.com for about a year, but I no longer do because it's just not worth that much to me.)

I'd like to read Le Monde , but the French refuse to publish an English version. Go figure.

All of Knight-Ridder's newspapers (The San Jose Mercury News , Miami Herald , Philadelphia Inquirer , et al) have been crippled by the "RealCities Network" which forces all of its sites to use the same content-poor, ad-rich design. The saddest story of the group is the SJMercury though, which has just fallen apart since the parent company began slashing costs and forcing the RealCities conformity on its once industry-leading site. The Miami Herald is an unofficial training school for future Washington Post reporters, but that doesn't matter if you can't find their content on the Web.

Slashdot doesn't link to the Financial Times often (ever?), though it's a great paper. It just doesn't turn out a lot of unique content that's of interest to most Slashdot readers.

Newspapers aside, Slashdot has linked to CNN and the BBC in the past, though not the CBC . ABC, CBS and NBC generally provide watered down news for people who don't like to read newspapers -- not Slashdot readers.

Slashdot often links to MSNBC , but I expect that will begin to decline -- MSNBC.com's founding editor (Merrill Brown, a former Washington Post reporter) recently announced that he's resigning after 6 years to pursue other, undisclosed "opportunities." The New York Times noted on June 12 (you'll have to pay for the archived version of the story) that he offhandedly mentioned that MSNBC.com is about to be swallowed by MSN for economic reasons. (In other words, Microsoft put its foot down and said financial concerns outweigh editorial concerns.)

The International Herald-Tribune writes some of its own content, but a lot of the paper is an amalgamation of New York Times and Washington Post stories.

I haven't read the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Seattle Times in a while, but you may find some good technology stories there.

Bottom Line: Slashdot links to a disproportionate number of New York Times and Washington Post stories because both papers' sites post a lot of content and that content is top notch. It also helps that they're among the most recognizable names in journalism, but the Slashdot system is set up to allow editors to pick from the best stories that are submitted, regardless of the content provider's brand recognition. If you read a good story somewhere, submit it -- the quality of the story is more important than the misguided registration policies of the content provider. And if I've missed a good site people should be reading, reply to this message and let people know.

I'd carry a plastic bottle that I could put snow into, then put the bottle into my clothes. After it melts, then you can drink it. That's much safer.

Do not eat without melting! Eating snow and ice can reduce body temperature and will lead to more dehydration.

Melt ice or snow and boil it if possible. Don't eat crushed ice - it can injure your mouth and can also cause further dehydration.

Lundin says eating lots of snow is a common and potentially deadly mistake.

"Don't eat snow," said Mike Sheets. "Don't put it in your mouth and try to melt it if you're thirsty. You'll use up too much of your body's heat, and you need that energy for yourself."

Drink a lot of water, 8 to 12 glasses a day. But do not eat snow to satisfy your thirst. Eating snow can lower your body's core temperature, triggering deadly hypothermia.

Don't waste body heat by eating snow. Make a fire; heat water before drinking.

Do not eat snow as it tends to dehydrate the body

Do not eat snow to obtain water, it will just make you colder.

Actually, MSNBC had a very positive article about Lycoris a while back. (The link to the article seems to have stopped working in the minute or so between when I located it and when I previewed my post. I don't know if it's down for good, but in any case it lasted much longer than the 20 minutes predicted by the top post in the /. forum :-))

I may be a conspiracy theorist but I now know why M$NBC released this story today of all times. Are they (Micro$oft) trying to steal some thunder from Linux?

I may be a conspiracy theorist but I now know why M$NBC released this story today of all times. Are they (Micro$oft) trying to steal some thunder from Linux?

Please email john.schoen@msnbc.com the author of this story and let him know what you think of his writtng skills and his *facts*. We should make sure loosers like him dont attempt to make our beloved LINUX look bad. Teach him a lesson also write to MSNBC and let them know why they should get rid of this "John Schoen" guy :)

Hundred "lol msnbc rotfl lol" one liners already?

Bashing articles like this takes patience, and (lucky for me) always starts with a little character assasination:

A quick google on Jown w. schoen shows us john (whose lastname translates to "shoe" in dutch btw, for those who where wondering) likes to write stories. None of these apear to be hosted at nasa.gov , so we just assume he is no rocket scientist. Most of his stories come from msnbc And they tell us about how "local busineses go for the gold at the olympics and the Insurance industry thriving post-9/11 . Now, in his favour, google turns up some searches indicating he (or someone with his name) wants to preserve wildlife(bears and birds ), I may be ruthless with other peoples character, but on these issues I agree and think he should perhaps consider a full time career couse he does a way better job at writing about birds then he does on "hightech-biz-hype" issues where he just does the pressrelease/minute counting game to find out whats "hot" (hype)

Righ now is the time to note his stories are not hosted at ADTI, either. Nice for him you might think, couse documents once posted there, tend to change over time, but there is another reason. It seems john has found a platform for his text in wich there is little bother about their contents as long as they match the general small to thinking-they-are-big busineses line of interests. No critical journalism, and no conclusion of any sort in this article whatsoever, by no means a targeted fud compaign.

So what remains of this particular story: "At tech expo, open source software is hard to find" is the sub-headline for those of us who (like me) didn`t bother to read the article completely, thats all what this story is about and it just heapons to be a quote from someone who is in those silent spots at "tech expo". Wich expo is he talking about anyway, ah there is the link in the article, you know a good journalist has done his/her job when you see one link in the article, it tells you that he has listened to every side on the matter on which he (or she) is reporting. Tech expo must be a fun place to be, especially for serious programmer will feel right at home at the informationweek sponsored (another reputable magazine with such high ranking "news sources" as the bsa!) where the most sophistacated topic seams to "securing wireless networks using nice shiny gui software", one has to wonder in what cave those who hear of wireless insecurity for the first time have been living, but it aint the one with our friendly OOG

And now I might have lost the readers looking for a nice conspiracy theory about well targeted fud already, dont throw away those tinfoil hats yet couse msnbc actually reports the scary story that there is an FBI booth at pc expo where real fbi officers (no "I could have sworn it was a booth babe when I asked about getting a picture of her kissing me" stories this time)hand out application forms becouse, acording to msnbc "where better to find certified computer experts" Now that is scary becouse from what I read in the rest of the story, this expo doesn`t really match computex, hacking at large or e3 for that matter, so I think the FBI should have a chat with Cia recruting or perhaps see if the nsa has some cryptographers left couse I have the feeling they wont find any real technical help at this expo (other then those who put ten years of wireless mcse window 2000 experience with webservices .net and iis on their cv).

Hundred "lol msnbc rotfl lol" one liners already?

Bashing articles like this takes patience, and (lucky for me) always starts with a little character assasination:

A quick google on Jown w. schoen shows us john (whose lastname translates to "shoe" in dutch btw, for those who where wondering) likes to write stories. None of these apear to be hosted at nasa.gov , so we just assume he is no rocket scientist. Most of his stories come from msnbc And they tell us about how "local busineses go for the gold at the olympics and the Insurance industry thriving post-9/11 . Now, in his favour, google turns up some searches indicating he (or someone with his name) wants to preserve wildlife(bears and birds ), I may be ruthless with other peoples character, but on these issues I agree and think he should perhaps consider a full time career couse he does a way better job at writing about birds then he does on "hightech-biz-hype" issues where he just does the pressrelease/minute counting game to find out whats "hot" (hype)

Righ now is the time to note his stories are not hosted at ADTI, either. Nice for him you might think, couse documents once posted there, tend to change over time, but there is another reason. It seems john has found a platform for his text in wich there is little bother about their contents as long as they match the general small to thinking-they-are-big busineses line of interests. No critical journalism, and no conclusion of any sort in this article whatsoever, by no means a targeted fud compaign.

So what remains of this particular story: "At tech expo, open source software is hard to find" is the sub-headline for those of us who (like me) didn`t bother to read the article completely, thats all what this story is about and it just heapons to be a quote from someone who is in those silent spots at "tech expo". Wich expo is he talking about anyway, ah there is the link in the article, you know a good journalist has done his/her job when you see one link in the article, it tells you that he has listened to every side on the matter on which he (or she) is reporting. Tech expo must be a fun place to be, especially for serious programmer will feel right at home at the informationweek sponsored (another reputable magazine with such high ranking "news sources" as the bsa!) where the most sophistacated topic seams to "securing wireless networks using nice shiny gui software", one has to wonder in what cave those who hear of wireless insecurity for the first time have been living, but it aint the one with our friendly OOG

And now I might have lost the readers looking for a nice conspiracy theory about well targeted fud already, dont throw away those tinfoil hats yet couse msnbc actually reports the scary story that there is an FBI booth at pc expo where real fbi officers (no "I could have sworn it was a booth babe when I asked about getting a picture of her kissing me" stories this time)hand out application forms becouse, acording to msnbc "where better to find certified computer experts" Now that is scary becouse from what I read in the rest of the story, this expo doesn`t really match computex, hacking at large or e3 for that matter, so I think the FBI should have a chat with Cia recruting or perhaps see if the nsa has some cryptographers left couse I have the feeling they wont find any real technical help at this expo (other then those who put ten years of wireless mcse window 2000 experience with webservices .net and iis on their cv).

Can you show me anything that demonstrates the first technical understanding?

Newsweek is prolefeed. You are an offtopic troll.

Paladium includes DRM chip on board. We can be sure that such a thing will make any machine with it into an appliance. That's fine, but it's not a computer. Hopefully someone will continue to make computers that work.

That's the Slashdot article's headline, honeycakes. Perhaps if you DID read the article, you'd realize how idiotic this entire discussion is (and by association, your comment -- but your comment stands well enough on its own idiocy).

Slashdot:
Is Linux Dead?

MSNBC:
So whatever happened to Linux?

From the article, it appears that MSNBC doesn't either; and from the Slashdot article, it appears that alot of /. posters like to jump to conclusions.

You're welcome :)

Yesterday, as we all know, Microsoft fed an 'exclusive' story about its new 'Palladium' DRM/PKI Trust Machine to Newsweek hack Steven Levy (a guy who writes without irony of "high-level encryption"), presumably because they trusted him not to grasp the technology well enough to question it seriously. His un-critical announcement immediately sparked a flurry of articles considering what this means to the Windows user base.

And that's as it should be. But my question is, what does it mean to the Linux user base?

Well, of course no one knows yet; the Levy article is long on generalized promises but very short on details. We know that some hardware element will be involved -- some hardened slice of silicon on the mobo which will identify the computer and the user, and recognize other computers and their users. It, or a companion chip, will interface with some manner of PKI, current or future, so that only 'authorized' applications may run with privileges. MS wants us to think that the 'authorizer' will be the user, but we know better: there will undoubtedly be a DRM element in it, and its authorizations will override yours. There will also be a networking component, involving an elaborate PKI and vast data warehouses run by MS and its trusted partners.

So let's say Intel and AMD begin shipping Palladium-compliant boards as MS begins shipping the software to OEMs and shops. And let's say that the Redmond spin campaign, persuading users that this is actually for their benefit, takes hold, and consumer demand for the scheme begins to grow and it eventually becomes a de facto standard, like SSL today, for example.

Got root?
All right then, how do we get Linux and open-source servers and apps to work with networks using this master scheme? What changes will be necessary?

The first thing that comes to mind is the difficulty of getting my Apache Web server to work seamlessly with Harry Homeowner's Windoze box when he comes to my site for some eminently trustworthy business. Everything I download to him (and this may even include Web pages -- the scheme is that far-reaching) will have some manner of digital cert which MS and its family of cronies will have established beforehand. I don't see a problem here. The certs will be embedded in the content and I'm merely providing space for it to reside. Even pages and images can be digitally signed and Harry's box can simply accept them or not according to rules he's worked out for himself.

But what if Harry needs to transact business and/or send me something? Then I think it gets tricky for two reasons. First, I have to be able to assure him that I can't read what he sends (and neither can the script kiddies who root my site monthly), and second, I'll probably have to pass part of it along 'safely' (as defined by MS) to some other network under Redmond suzerainty where the bulk of Harry's whole life's data is stored and continually updated. And of course I'll need access to that data so I can be sure Harry is Harry and his Mark of the Beast (or whatever MS will call his Uniform Identifier) is valid.

So to validate Harry, and to update his Master Data File -- two bits of business integral to the Palladium scheme -- I'll need hardware, an OS and a server compliant with Redmond specs. Now MS says they're going to make the sources to the core of this technology open. But considering Microsoft's white-knuckled terror of Linux and open source products in general, combined with its established penchant for mining its products with hidden little pissers for the competition, I don't think it's paranoid to imagine that I may have to turn to a packaged product from a major MS partner/collaborator or a Linux distributor who's gone to the bother of obtaining certs for the kernel and the apps. But either way we'll have major GPL problems, as we'll see below. Indeed, this is going to be something of a reductio ad absurdum.

This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is, the minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to interface with the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a Linux box with a GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any meaningful way I'll render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and lose business. So instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for support, updates, modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on them for support services at whatever price they can wheedle out of me because I dare not lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if the cost of ownership of an open-source system will actually be lower than the cost of a proprietary system under such circumstances.

If MS can't wipe out Linux, at least they can throw their marketing might and obscene quantities of cash into the project of castrating and controlling it by rendering the commons hostile to Linux users who still have their balls. They can in a sense create a huge market for open/closed hybrids, just as I imagined above: a system that comes with a GPL which I dare not exercise, and with considerable costs of both purchase and ownership. Even Dell might get into the castrated Linux act when they see what sort of stranglehold the Palladium scheme will enable them to place on it.

But here's the diabolical bit. Linux distributors are going to lose big time if they remain faithful to the GPL. Palladium will either break the GPL, or if not, break Linux.

Harry's lament
I fully expect to see Linux on the desktop growing rapidly in the next several years. The major distros like SuSE and Mandrake are coming along nicely with classic Harry features like automatic updates. Hardware detection is getting better by the day. Open Office is rapidly approaching the point where it imports from and exports to MS office without difficulty. The 2.4.x kernel is finally showing signs of the 2.2.x's legendary stability. The KDE desktop is looking sharp and working nicely now with version 3.0. Mozilla is coming along wonderfully. And now Red Hat says it intends to commit seriously to the desktop market.

As the obstacles to Windows migration fall away, inherent virtues like better security and privacy (your Linux box does not automatically connect to servers at Microsoft whenever you search your hard disk, for example), freedom to configure, redemption from the MS update crack-addiction, and low cost of ownership will strike more chords with the computing public.

This terrifies MS as much as the enterprise Lintel phenomenon. And it's not just cost rationale at play here. There's a revelation in store for users once they have something to compare their Windows eXPerience against. As home users come to use and understand Linux, they'll automatically begin to perceive what a parasite Microsoft really is.

The answer to this will be more parasitism: Palladium is a means of infesting the commons with hostile digital fauna. As these new services and applications become more plentiful, the need for the Linux desktop to deal with them according to Redmond spec will increase as well.

Kernel hackers will have their hands full figuring that one out. How do you make Linux interface with a security chip in such a way that untrusted applications are sandboxed without taking root away from the machine's owner? I think the answer is, 'you can't,' and I imagine Redmond thinks so too. And what will Palladium mean to application development? More overhead, that's what. Certification authorities charge for their services. Some applications in development may have to be scrapped due to the costs of certification.

Eventually, as Palladium contagion spreads, the home Linux box will need certified open-source apps to run DR-managed content. Here goes the GPL again. So I've got this certified app. Fine. I've got the sources. Fine. What happens if I decide to build my own binaries? They won't be certified. They won't work. So what does the GPL mean to me then? It means I can build, or modify and build, an application which will lack the digital cert which it needs in order to run the content it was designed to run. Only the binaries will be certified (as a moment's reflection will make obvious). This is a nail in the GPL's coffin. Yes, I can improve the app and give away or maybe even sell my improved version; but first I have to prove that it qualifies for certification, and second I have to pay for the cert. And when I release it, source and all, only the certified binary will function.

The entire concept of root will be out the window. If I build my own or re-compile my existing kernel, my certs won't work. I won't be permitted to log in to the Microsoft Digital Empire or any of its numerous colonies because that little chip on my mobo is going to freak out. Perhaps even my certified apps will fail to run. And I can no longer present my Uniform Identifier at the digital immigration turnstiles which MS will be setting up as I meander through cyberspace. "Sorry, we don't know who you are; you'll have to turn back...."

So how is this going to work in practical terms? Will the Linux distributors release certified kernels and apps and utilities? I don't see how they can avoid it. But what happens to the GPL in that case? Will the certification authorities decline to certify the distro if the kernel and app sources are included? Or will the machine simply lose its Palladium authorization and fail to work properly if apps or the kernel are re-compiled or built from external sources?

Either way, the GPL is perverted. Any GPL'd kernel, utility, application, whatever, that's designed to be Palladium compliant will have to be distributed without certified sources. There's simply no way to ensure that a source archive can only be used to build compliant binaries, unless GCC is deliberately broken in some radical way and the security hardware won't allow other compilers to run (except similarly broken ones).

Will there be a hybrid Linux/hardware package coming out to address this? A sort of black box -- a mere desktop appliance not unlike an X-Box or a Palladium-enabled Windoze box -- with no compiler, and only user privileges, and some hardware chip that prevents modifications to any of the binaries except by digitally-signed RPMs pre-approved for Palladium compliance? That means basically that MS has got root on my machine, and of course it would rip the guts out of the GPL to boot. [Reader Stephen Crane points out that Rule Set Based Access Control (RSBAC) might well suit such a product, which would then make MS not root but the 'Security Officer' of my Linux machine.]

It's the very fact that this appears insoluble to me that helps me realize that MS has put tremendous, careful thought into it. To make the commons Linux-hostile, MS is taking dramatic steps to make it GPL-hostile. Very clever and admirably diabolical.

Of course here I'm assuming Palladium won't become the next Microsoft Bob. It could meet with severe consumer rejection, as I hope it will. And so we end with a question for lawyers, not for me: is a technically-valid, letter-of-the-law GPL which you can't practically exercise violated or not? You've got your sources and everything in the distro is GPL'd -- only any binaries you choose to build on your own will isolate you from the commons. I think MS believes it's found a loophole here. Whether it will work or not is another question.

In any case, it's time for Tuxers to take the gloves off.

But with at least 5 years until Longhorn's release, I think we can count on the world changing so radically in the meantime that Longhorn and Palladium become completely irrelevant. Look at Microsoft Bob, their last "big-bang" approach to engineering a network computer architecture, and how the WWW made it completely irrelevant.

... at the top of the msnbc page the post links to, and you know Palladium won't make it.

4 guys posing for a picture, looking like they just broke into your house and liked what they saw.

Not for me, thank you indeed.

" Because of their sheer incompetence and gross neglect, I lost many dear friends on 9/11/2001, a day that will live in infamy."

First of all, let me offer my condolences. I myself have never lost any one close to me, so I can only imagine how you must feel.

Second, you need to realize that there was no intellegence failure, the government allowed 9/11 to happen so that the people would support the war in Afganistan as well as the comming invasions of Iraq and Iran. As evidence, I refer you to this article.

I know this is off topic, and I hope I haven't offended you, I just thought you should know who is responsible for your loss.

before I secheduled even a phone interview, I'd always search dejanews for the person in question. Sometimes I'd come up with a definate hit (first and last name as well as email and mentioning the local area or some work that was on their resume) and I'd be able to see what kind of person I was really dealing with. That's when I started looking at what I'd posted.

This kind of freaked me out when I started teaching in 1998 - I'd been running a large fan web site devoted to one of my favorite bands, and being heavily into the band, I posted a lot in their newsgroup and participated in more than one flame war. Of course, I was in college and in my very early 20's and late teens, but it's all archived on DejaNews now, with no way to remove it. I really doubt any public school districts are going to wise up to this (or even care, considering the national teacher shortage), but I wouldn't be surprised if it came back to haunt me in some way some day. As a previous poster mentioned, such is the burden of free speech.

An interesting thing did happen to me at the beginning of this school year. I teach high school computer classes, and I was talking about managing that fan web site when one of my students (a junior) opened his eyes really big and pointed at me with his jaw dropped, sort of aghast. I paused and asked him what was wrong, and he exclaimed that he downloaded and used the guitar tabs I'd written years earlier when he was in junior high. I found that kind of amusing!

I think the archiving of the internet is particularly scary when I can still find a lousy guitar tab I did of Pearl Jam's "Footsteps" that I did back in 1992, when I was a senior in high school piggybacking off an account at the nearby university, on my parents' Apple //e, while I was still learning how to play guitar. Obviously, the internet can have a much longer shelf life than a ProDOS 5.25" floppy (excluding news sites that "expire" their articles after limited availability).

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

• 60 of 98 FBI Terrorism Cases were thrown out because of lack of evidence - The article even has a quote from an FBI spokesman admitting to arresting and trying to prosecute people knowing that it would never go through.
• Village Voice Analysis - It's the Village Voice, take it with a grain of salt. (I'm just adding it to this list because it is quite insightful.
• Business Week Article discussing the various infringement of civil rights
• NYTime Editorial on naming an American citizen as an illegal combatant
• Ohio State graduates threatened with expulsion/arrest if they "demonstrate or heckle" during Bush's speech - "But immediately before class members filed into the giant football stadium, an announcer instructed the crowd that all the university's speakers deserve to be treated with respect and that anyone demonstrating or heckling would be subject to expulsion and arrest. The announcer urged that Bush be greeted with a "thunderous" ovation.
• Federal Courts strike down Bush Administrations attempt to prevent people from challenging censorship laws
• Justice Department raising questions about case on John Lindh
• Another NYTimes article on illegally detaining American Citizens

Interesting development:
msnbc.com is reporting an Associated Press story that Microsoft will stop supporting Java in Windows by 2004..

-- D.

I tried to submit this article as a story to /. but got shot down. It's my rejection and I'll grouse if I want to! :-P

Interesting development:
msnbc.com is reporting an Associated Press story that Microsoft will stop supporting Java in Windows by 2004..

-- D.

I tried to submit this article as a story to /. but got shot down. It's my rejection and I'll grouse if I want to! :-P

For example? (serious question)

I highly recommend Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein by Adrian Havill. (It's is out of print according to Amazon.) It's part biography of Woodward and Bernstein and part discussion of Deep Throat. (Havill concludes Deep Throat was a composite character.)

The most amusing example from the book is the origin of the Deep Throat code name. Bernstein claims that he went to see Deep Throat in Washington, D.C. to evade a subpoena. Havill documents conclusively that Deep Throat wasn't showing anywhere in or near Washington, D.C. Not only was their source fake, the source of their fake source's nickname was also fake.

There are more examples in the Columbia Journalism Review article linked above or in today's gossip column on MSNBC.

InitZero

For example? (serious question)

I highly recommend Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein by Adrian Havill. (It's is out of print according to Amazon.) It's part biography of Woodward and Bernstein and part discussion of Deep Throat. (Havill concludes Deep Throat was a composite character.)

The most amusing example from the book is the origin of the Deep Throat code name. Bernstein claims that he went to see Deep Throat in Washington, D.C. to evade a subpoena. Havill documents conclusively that Deep Throat wasn't showing anywhere in or near Washington, D.C. Not only was their source fake, the source of their fake source's nickname was also fake.

There are more examples in the Columbia Journalism Review article linked above or in today's gossip column on MSNBC.

InitZero

This gaping hole discovered in apache is affecting millions of websites - part of the problem is that since it's an open source project, it's difficult to figure out who's responsible for fixing it. The article outlines how apache developers whined about not having time to fix the bug before news of the exploit was sent out - funny, I seem to recall that so many people that frequent this site are strongly in favor of immediate disclosure of bugs. Hmm....guess that's only when Microsoft's at fault, right guys? Let's see the janitors post this story...I've submitted it, but no dice so far.

This gaping hole discovered in apache is affecting millions of websites - part of the problem is that since it's an open source project, it's difficult to figure out who's responsible for fixing it. The article outlines how apache developers whined about not having time to fix the bug before news of the exploit was sent out - funny, I seem to recall that so many people that frequent this site are strongly in favor of immediate disclosure of bugs. Hmm....guess that's only when Microsoft's at fault, right guys? Let's see the janitors post this story...

From:

"When PC Magazine tried in 1999 to run a head-to-head comparison of Oracle and Microsoft databases, Oracle used the license terms to block it"

Of course...MSNBC wouldn't check the Microsoft Database product...

From:

"e. Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of either the Server Software or Client Software to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval."

http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/79/943/ssMain.asp?fmt=Chi ld&0ss=N3c179943&sld=2&v=28

And here's the link.
Actually, MSNBC has been interesting to behold. They had a very positive review of Lycoris Linux not too long ago, reported that MSN Internet has low customer satisfaction, and a May review of Abiword proclaimed it to be "Wonderful," "a success" and said "you should try it."
Seems objective to me.

And here's the link.
Actually, MSNBC has been interesting to behold. They had a very positive review of Lycoris Linux not too long ago, reported that MSN Internet has low customer satisfaction, and a May review of Abiword proclaimed it to be "Wonderful," "a success" and said "you should try it."
Seems objective to me.

How about Boston Globe or USA Today? Maybe San Jose Mercury News? Or heck, even MSNBC a site co-owned by NBS and Microsoft?

Also, Washington Post ran their own story over the weekend.

So, yeah, looks like the AP does go out to lots of places besides CNN, huh?

Has anyone else noticed that the amount of Linux/OSS bashing on /. has increased a lot lately?

This seems really weird to me. Are people coming here just to bash OSS? What happened to all the intelligent, free-thinking conversation?

/. seems to be flooded by static these days. If these people can't handle us "zealots" why don't they get their new somewhere else? Are they getting paid derail discussions by asserting half-truths? What's the incentive? Do they just post so that others will waste time posting proof they're wrong?

MS has been convicted.
This law is constitutional. (moron)
Computers do work without MS software.
There's no such thing a "congressional immunity"
Linux is easy to use, just hard to configure.
Anything else I missed?

If they don't want their freedom, fine. I'll keep mine thanks.

...saying a lot of what we all knew. I read the article on CNN about the "JPG virus", and it was obvious that they'd either got it totally wrong, or were trying to hype it.

One of my favorite quotes was:
Until now, viruses infected program files -- files that can be run on their own. Data files, like movies, music, text and pictures, were safe from infection. While earlier viruses deleted or modified data files, Perrun is the first to infect them.

Uhm... see. I had always thought that Word documents were data files (text). And I remember them being particularly responsible for a whole lot of annoying macro virii.

But on the Katzian subject, at least it was obvious that michael knew more about the subject than the people who wrote (and were interviewed) for the article I quoted. And it was nice to see an article that presented a bigger picture.

However, just because every other news outlet in the world spends all their time trying to expose shocking stories about conspiracy, etc, etc -- all of which could probably be titled something like "capitalists still trying to make money off of consumers" -- doesn't mean that /. should follow suit and do the same thing. Unless, of course, michael does some actual investigative research and finds out something *new* and *exciting* or *revealing* and then has something to tell us.

What's my point? Well - Slashdot already links to other stories from other news sources. We don't need to steal their shitty journalism too. We already have our own style of shitty journalism.

Objective? On Slashdot? If you're looking for an objective report, maybe you should counsider other news sources. But if you're just looking for news for nerds, you're at the right place.

On the heels of the death of British Bulldog Davey Boy Smith and Dee Dee Ramone, John Gotti joined the world of the dead at age 61.

John Gotti, 61, the stylish but murderous "Dapper Don" who rose from poverty to head of the entire Mafia structure in the United States, died Monday from complications of throat cancer at a federal prison hospital in Springfield, Mo.

Gotti, who was also know as the "Teflon Don" for beating a series of federal prosecutors in court, had been in declining health for several months, members of the Gotti family told NBC affiliate WNBC-TV in New York. He underwent a tracheotomy, in which a breathing tube is inserted through a hole in the neck, and could no longer talk, they said.

John Joseph Gotti Jr. was one of 13 children born into a poor family in the South Bronx. By age 14, he had already been arrested for allegedly stealing a cement mixer.

Before long, he was stealing cars and hijacking trucks, NBC News correspondent Dan Abrams reported. After serving five years behind bars in the late 1960s and early '70s, he was leading a crew of mobsters in the Gambino crime family, the most powerful branch of the U.S. Mafia.

You may never have been involved in a mob hit nor believed in the Mafia's complicity in the assassination of Kennedy, but the reach of the Gambino crime family is far and wide. Truly an American icon. He will be missed.

HAHAHA
from A presentation for Xbox Live, Microsoft's online service for its game console, stressed hack-proof servers.

Indeed, after reading news reports over the last few years, I've grown weary of the much-overused "senior administration official" or other source-naming cop-outs. It seems like half of what we're supposed to take seriously in the news media is anonymously spoken. I hate it on several fronts, the two most important being the requisite level of trust we must have in order to believe these vindictive and lying bastards and the distressing conclusion that far too many people in positions of power would rather speak their mind from the shadows rather than be honest and open about it. Yeah, there are occasions when source secrecy is very important and essential to the story being reported...but it's gone way, way too far.

As for the opinons of some who believe weblogs don't create news, I totally disagree. See the current turmoil created by Eric Alterman's recent foray into blogging (after commenting on the phenomenon negatively for some time), the community of readers who disseminate and discuss what Mickey Kaus and Glenn Reynolds have to say, Andrew Sullivan's staunch stance on the Catholic scandals, the rise of the American Prospect's and National Review's reporting and commentary and other cases where the bloggers themselves created news by commenting on something else. And let's be honest here, just because the news they created wasn't reported on by the AP or UPI and didn't make Nightline or Good Morning America doesn't lessen its news status, for it is news to the community they are part of.

The UCB course mentioned in the article looks more like it will teach on-line journalism, but they've buzzworded it with 'blogging' as a PR exercise. These guys know PR, you see.

Looks more like they can spot a trend. When real journalists, start blogging (or at least what appears to be similar to blogging, the line keeps getting blurrier), somebody is going to offer a course in how to do it (the technology part, most likely).

Sure, blogging about news does not make one a journalist. But journalists can blog, it ain't that tough to do... although some of them will end up writing columns as opposed to actually blogging. Whatever. It isn't really that important.